As organizations rapidly embrace cloud services, remote work, and distributed architectures, traditional perimeter-based security has become obsolete. Today’s users, devices, and applications operate far beyond corporate network boundaries—rendering legacy security models ineffective against modern threats. According to Gartner, by 2025, 60% of enterprises will phase out most of their remote access VPNs in favor of ZTNA. Meanwhile, IBM’s Cost of a Data Breach Report shows that organizations with Zero Trust deployed saved an average of $1.76 million per breach. Cost of a Data Breach Report As threats grow more dynamic and sophisticated, ZTNA itself must evolve. The next phase of Zero Trust requires access decisions that adapt in real time—driven by continuous risk assessment and enforced through dynamic path segmentation. Why Traditional ZTNA Needs Real-Time Adaptability? Why Traditional ZTNA Needs Real-Time Adaptability? Traditional ZTNA models authenticate users and validate device posture before granting access. But after authentication, most policies remain static—unable to respond to changes in user behavior, device compromise, or emerging threats during an active session. This exposes organizations to risks that appear after access is granted. after For example, a device may become infected mid-session, or a trusted user may begin accessing unusual resources. Static controls simply cannot detect these shifts. Real-World Example: The SolarWinds Lesson Real-World Example: The SolarWinds Lesson The 2020 SolarWinds attack demonstrated exactly why static access decisions fail. Attackers compromised legitimate credentials and moved laterally through networks for months all while appearing as trusted users. A dynamic, risk-aware ZTNA system would have: Flagged anomalous behavior
Triggered step-up authentication
Restricted or revoked access Flagged anomalous behavior Triggered step-up authentication Restricted or revoked access before substantial damage occurred. Where Static ZTNA Fails: Specific Scenarios Where Static ZTNA Fails: Specific Scenarios Credential theftA user’s credentials are stolen via phishing, but their device and session remain trusted.
Insider threatAn authenticated employee begins accessing unusual resources.
Session hijackingAn attacker takes over a valid authenticated session.
Device compromiseMalware infects a previously compliant device mid-session. Credential theftA user’s credentials are stolen via phishing, but their device and session remain trusted. Insider threatAn authenticated employee begins accessing unusual resources. Session hijackingAn attacker takes over a valid authenticated session. Device compromiseMalware infects a previously compliant device mid-session. Static ZTNA cannot respond to any of these threats once initial access is granted. Real-Time Risk Scoring: The Engine of Adaptive Access Real-Time Risk Scoring: The Engine of Adaptive Access Real-time risk scoring adds a continuous evaluation layer that monitors user and device trustworthiness throughout an active session. Instead of relying on a one-time identity check, the system calculates a composite, evolving risk score based on: Key Risk Inputs Key Risk Inputs User behavior: Login anomalies, activity deviations, unusual access patterns
Device posture: OS version, patch level, security configuration, EDR signals
Environmental signals: Geolocation, connection source, network reputation
Threat intelligence: Known malicious IPs, IOCs, active attack campaigns User behavior: Login anomalies, activity deviations, unusual access patterns User behavior: Device posture: OS version, patch level, security configuration, EDR signals Device posture: Environmental signals: Geolocation, connection source, network reputation Environmental signals: Threat intelligence: Known malicious IPs, IOCs, active attack campaigns Threat intelligence: With continuous scoring, ZTNA can dynamically adjust permissions: Low risk → seamless access
Medium risk → step-up authentication or restricted access
High risk → session termination or quarantine Low risk → seamless access Medium risk → step-up authentication or restricted access High risk → session termination or quarantine This ensures that access privileges always reflect the current threat landscape, not outdated assumptions. current threat landscape Dynamic Path Segmentation: Reimagining Secure Connectivity Dynamic Path Segmentation: Reimagining Secure Connectivity Dynamic path segmentation complements real-time risk scoring by enforcing least-privilege network access at the transport level. Unlike VPNs which provide broad network exposure once authenticated—dynamic segmentation creates per-application secure pathways that exist only as long as trust conditions remain valid. These microtunnels: Are built using software-defined routing
Exist only for individual applications
Offer zero lateral movement
Automatically adjust or terminate based on risk changes Are built using software-defined routing Exist only for individual applications Offer zero lateral movement Automatically adjust or terminate based on risk changes How Dynamic Path Segmentation Works? How Dynamic Path Segmentation Works? **   ** Each routing path corresponds to a dedicated network segment with unique security controls, logging levels, and permissions. ZTNA + Real-Time Risk Scoring + Dynamic Path Segmentation: A Unified Adaptive Model ZTNA + Real-Time Risk Scoring + Dynamic Path Segmentation: A Unified Adaptive Model Together, these three components create an intelligent, self-adjusting Zero Trust architecture. How the Unified Model Operates How the Unified Model Operates Real-time access decisions: Authentication adapts based on the current risk score
Continuous monitoring: Risk scores evolve with each user action
Network-level enforcement: Path segmentation isolates users based on trust
Feedback loop: Logged events improve future detection accuracy Real-time access decisions: Authentication adapts based on the current risk score Real-time access decisions: Continuous monitoring: Risk scores evolve with each user action Continuous monitoring: Network-level enforcement: Path segmentation isolates users based on trust Network-level enforcement: Feedback loop: Logged events improve future detection accuracy Feedback loop: Access always reflects least privilege, and threats are contained before lateral movement occurs. Implementation Considerations Implementation Considerations When rolling out this unified model, organizations should consider: Start with visibilityDeploy risk scoring in monitoring mode to baseline behaviors.
Phased enforcementIntroduce step-up authentication first before enabling automated blocking.
Integration requirementsConnect SIEM, identity provider, and endpoint tools to feed risk signals.
False positive tuningOverly aggressive thresholds create friction—tune gradually.
Compliance alignmentMap risk thresholds to regulatory frameworks (PCI-DSS, HIPAA, SOC 2). Start with visibilityDeploy risk scoring in monitoring mode to baseline behaviors. Phased enforcementIntroduce step-up authentication first before enabling automated blocking. Integration requirementsConnect SIEM, identity provider, and endpoint tools to feed risk signals. False positive tuningOverly aggressive thresholds create friction—tune gradually. Compliance alignmentMap risk thresholds to regulatory frameworks (PCI-DSS, HIPAA, SOC 2). Key Integration Points Key Integration Points Identity Provider (IdP): User identity & posture
EDR: Device health and threat signals
SIEM/SOAR: Threat intelligence correlation
CASB: Application visibility and governance Identity Provider (IdP): User identity & posture Identity Provider (IdP): EDR: Device health and threat signals EDR: SIEM/SOAR: Threat intelligence correlation SIEM/SOAR: CASB: Application visibility and governance CASB: Common Pitfalls and How to Avoid Them Common Pitfalls and How to Avoid Them 1. Over-Aggressive Risk ThresholdsProblem: Excessive false positives frustrate users.Solution: Start permissively in monitoring mode and tighten gradually. Solution: 2. Insufficient Signal Sources Problem: Limited visibility results in inaccurate scoring.Solution: Integrate multiple data streams for holistic assessment. Solution: 3. Ignoring User Experience Problem: High friction drives users to insecure workarounds.Solution: Optimize for low-risk common cases; add friction only when needed. Solution: 4. Static Policies on Dynamic Systems Problem: Treating risk scoring as set-and-forget.Solution: Review thresholds and detection patterns regularly. Solution: Conclusion Conclusion Zero Trust Network Access has become a foundational element of modern cybersecurity, but its effectiveness depends heavily on its ability to evolve alongside the shifting threat landscape. Traditional, static ZTNA models while valuable are no longer sufficient in an environment where user behavior, device posture, and external threat conditions can change at any moment. By integrating real-time risk scoring and dynamic path segmentation, organizations can elevate ZTNA from a one-time gatekeeper into a continuously adaptive security framework. This dynamic approach ensures that trust is never assumed and that access decisions reflect current conditions rather than outdated assumptions made at login. The combination of continuous risk assessment and flexible, per-application segmentation dramatically reduces the chances of lateral movement, session compromise, or unnoticed insider threats. This unified model provides security teams with unprecedented visibility and responsiveness, enabling them to contain risks before they escalate into breaches. At the same time, it improves user experience by removing unnecessary friction for trusted interactions and only introducing additional checks when warranted by risk signals. Looking forward, the future of adaptive ZTNA will be shaped by advances in AI, predictive analytics, and cross-organization threat intelligence. As these technologies mature, organizations will gain the ability to anticipate risks rather than simply react to them. Those who adopt adaptive ZTNA today will be better equipped to handle the increasingly sophisticated threats of tomorrow, strengthening both operational resilience and user trust. For organizations ready to take their next step, the path forward begins with assessing current access controls, identifying risk signal gaps, and piloting real-time scoring in a targeted environment. With thoughtful implementation and ongoing refinement, adaptive ZTNA becomes not just a security enhancement, but a transformative shift in how access is governed across the enterprise. This story was distributed as a release by Sanya Kapoor under HackerNoon’s Business Blogging Program. This story was distributed as a release by Sanya Kapoor under HackerNoon’s Business Blogging Program. This story was distributed as a release by Sanya Kapoor under HackerNoon’s Business Blogging Program. HackerNoon’s Business Blogging Program HackerNoon’s Business Blogging Program

The is an opinion piece based on the author’s POV and does not necessarily reflect the views of HackerNoon.

Zero Trust Network Access(ZTNA) Enforcement Using Real Time Risk Scoring & Dynamic Path Segmentation

About Author

Comments

TOPICS

THIS ARTICLE WAS FEATURED IN

Related Stories

5 Essential Elements of a Strong Cyber Security Framework for Financial Institutions

A Beginner's Guide on Ransomware: How To Identify and Prevent Attacks

One Vulnerability; Devastating Consequences

Cyber Polygon Returns to Simulate an Advanced Targeted Attack on a Tech Company

AI-Assisted Cyber Attack Methods That Could Cripple Your Business

4 Main Problems with Application-Layer Detection Rules

5 Essential Elements of a Strong Cyber Security Framework for Financial Institutions

A Beginner's Guide on Ransomware: How To Identify and Prevent Attacks

One Vulnerability; Devastating Consequences

Cyber Polygon Returns to Simulate an Advanced Targeted Attack on a Tech Company

AI-Assisted Cyber Attack Methods That Could Cripple Your Business

4 Main Problems with Application-Layer Detection Rules

Light-Mode

Classic

Newspaper

Minty

Dark-Mode

Neon Noir

Minty

HN StartUps